|To:||Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: New XFS benchmarks using David Chinner's recommendations for XFS-based optimizations.|
|From:||Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:22:53 -0500|
|Cc:||xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alan Piszcz <ap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Organization:||TMR Associates Inc, Schenectady NY|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:126.96.36.199) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6|
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Dave's original e-mail:# mkfs.xfs -f -l lazy-count=1,version=2,size=128m -i attr=2 -d agcount=4 <dev># mount -o logbsize=256k <dev> <mtpt>And if you don't care about filsystem corruption on power loss:# mount -o logbsize=256k,nobarrier <dev> <mtpt>Those mkfs values (except for log size) will be hte defaults in the next release of xfsprogs.Cheers,Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group--------- I used his mkfs.xfs options verbatim but I use my own mount options: noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8,logbsize=26214Here are the results, the results of 3 bonnie++ averaged together for each test:http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/xfs1/result.html Thanks Dave, this looks nice--the more optimizations the better! -----------I also find it rather pecuilar that in some of my (other) benchmarks my RAID 5 is just as fast as RAID 0 for extracting large files (uncompressed) files:RAID 5 (1024k CHUNK)26.95user 6.72system 0:37.89elapsed 88%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k0inputs+0outputs (6major+526minor)pagefaults 0swapsCompare with RAID 0 for the same operation: (as with RAID5, it appears 256k-1024k..2048k possibly) is the sweet spot. Why does mdadm still use 64k for the default chunk size?
Write performance with small files, I would think. There is some information in old posts, but I don't seem to find them as quickly as I would like.
And another quick question, would there be any benefit to use (if it were possible) a block size of > 4096 bytes with XFS (I assume only IA64/similar arch can support it), e.g. x86_64 cannot because the page_size is 4096.[ 8265.407137] XFS: only pagesize (4096) or less will currently work.
-- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will stillbe valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||xfs_repair gone wrong, Aaron Blew|
|Next by Date:||raid 10 su, sw settings, Brad Langhorst|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: New XFS benchmarks using David Chinner's recommendations for XFS-based optimizations., Wolfgang Denk|
|Next by Thread:||xfs_repair gone wrong, Aaron Blew|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|